Purpose of review Suicide is the second leading cause of death in youth aged 10–24 years old globally, but detecting those at risk is challenging. Novel preventive strategies with wide influence across populations are required. Interest in the potential for both detrimental and supportive influences of social media/internet use on suicidal behaviour has been growing; however, the relationship remains unclear. Recent findings A systematic search of articles from database inception up to 25 January 2019 across five databases: Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, HMIC and CINAHL revealed nine independent studies investigating social media/internet use and suicide attempts in young people less than 19 years old (n = 346 416). An independent direct association was found between heavy social media/internet use and increased suicide attempts in seven studies (adjusted ORs ranged from 1.03 to 5.10), although adjusting for cyberbullying victimization and sleep disturbance reduced the strength of this association. Two studies found that some social media/internet use, versus no use, may be associated with fewer suicide attempts. There were no studies investigating the relationship between social media/internet use and completed suicide. Summary There is an independent association between problematic use of social media/internet and suicide attempts in young people. However, the direction of causality, if any, remains unclear. Further evaluation through longitudinal studies is needed.
Aims and method We aimed to evaluate the availability and nature of services for people affected by personality disorder in England by conducting a survey of English National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts and independent organisations.Results In England, 84% of organisations reported having at least one dedicated personality disorder service. This represents a fivefold increase compared with a 2002 survey. However, only 55% of organisations reported that patients had equal access across localities to these dedicated services. Dedicated services commonly had good levels of service use and carer involvement, and engagement in education, research and training. However, a wider multidisciplinary team and a greater number of biopsychosocial interventions were available through generic services.Clinical implications There has been a substantial increase in service provision for people affected by personality disorder, but continued variability in the availability of services is apparent and it remains unclear whether quality of care has improved.
Self-harm and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents are common and are risk factors for completed suicide. Social exclusion, which can take many forms, increases the risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation. One important marker of social exclusion in young people is school absenteeism. Whether school absenteeism is associated with these adverse outcomes, and if so to what extent, remains unclear. To determine the association between school absenteeism and both self-harm (including completed suicide) and suicidal ideation in children and adolescents, we conducted a systematic review of observational studies. We conducted meta-analysis and report a narrative synthesis where this was not possible. Meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies showed that school absenteeism was associated with an increased risk of self-harm [pooled adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.20–1.57, P = 0.01] and of suicidal ideation (pooled aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02–1.42, P = 0.03). A small number of studies showed that school absenteeism had a longitudinal association with both adverse outcomes. Heterogeneity in the exposure and outcome variables, study design and reporting was prominent and limited the extent to which it was appropriate to pool results. School absenteeism was associated with both self-harm and suicidal ideation in young people, but this evidence was derived from a small number of cross-sectional studies. Further research into the mechanisms of this association could help to inform self-harm and suicide prevention strategies at clinical, school and population levels.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of the field of personality disorder since the publication of “Personality disorder: no longer a diagnosis of exclusion” in 2003. Design/methodology/approach A review of both the academic literature contained within relevant databases alongside manual searches of policy literature and guidance from the key stakeholders was undertaken. Findings The academic and policy literature concentrates on treating borderline and antisocial personality disorders. It seems unlikely that evidence will resolutely support any one treatment modality over another. Criticism has arisen that comparison between modalities misses inter and intra patient heterogeneity and the measurement of intervention has become conflated with overall service design and the need for robust care pathways. Apparent inconsistency in service availability remains, despite a wealth of evidence demonstrating the availability of cost-effective interventions and the significant inequality of social and health outcomes for this population. Research limitations/implications The inclusion of heterogeneous sources required pragmatic compromises in methodological rigour. Originality/value This paper charts the recent developments in the field with a wealth of wide-ranging evidence and robust guidance from institutions such as NICE. The policy literature has supported the findings of this evidence but current clinical practice and what patients and carers can expect from services remains at odds. This paper lays bare the disparity between what we know and what is being delivered. The authors argue for the need for greater research into current practice to inform the setting of minimum standards for the treatment of personality disorder.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.